A Grout Put

8/3/2019 A Grout Put

1/36

3rd Conference of the European Historical Economics Society

R e v i s i n g t h e e s t i m a t e s f o r t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l o u t p u t

o f G r e e c e ( 1 8 3 3 - 1 9 3 9 )

Socrates D. PETMEZAS

The purpose of this paper is to present a new estimate of the agricultural output of Greece

from its Independence to the Second World War. The research was a part of a larger project for the

estimation of the Greek GDP `during this long period1. My estimate of the agricultural output served

this global target but, in this paper, I will also try to go beyond the aggregate magnitudes and assess the

overall development of the Greek agricultural sector.

I will first present the available statistical data and assess their reliability. Then, I will compare

my own estimate with the only existing previous estimate (KOSTELENOS 1995). George Kostelenos and

I both used the output method and, what is more important, we shared the same objective : to use the

estimate as a major component in the study of the Greek GDP. Iw ill comment extensively on this

earlier attempt. I shall show that the new estimate is more satisfactory because it takes into

consideration all the available sources, it has adopted better assumptions concerning the extrapolation

of the movement of basic components of the agricultural output and, finally it has produced a more

reliable deflator of current values. Nevertheless, I hope that at the end it will be clear how much this

new estimate owes to the previous one2.

After the presentation of the methodology adopted for estimating the volume and value ofmajor agricultural products, I will try to compare the development of the per capita output of Greek

agriculture with that of other Mediterranean and Balkan cases.

1 The Research group on the Greek GDP is composed of Dr. George Kostelenos (KEPE),

myself, Prof. Demetrius Vassileiou (EUA), Dr. Michael Sphakianakis (KEPE/EUA) and

Emmanuel Kounaris (KEPE). The larger Research Program is coordinated by Prof. George Dertilis of


2/36

S o m e b a s i c f a c t s

I shall begin by making a quick reference to the main sociopolitical factors which influencedthe Greek agricultural economy and, consequently, played a significant role in the medium-term

development of the agricultural output.

D e m o g r a p h i c d e v e l o p m e n t

The small independent kingdom of Greece was founded in 1832, after 12 years of a long and

extremely destructive War of Independence in the Southern provinces of present day Greece. It was acountry of small-owners and small cultivators of state lands whose agricultural trade was characterized

by its almost total dependence on currant exports to finance the imports of wheat and other basic

foodstuffs. Nevertheless, in the 19th century its population increased with an unprecedented steady rate

of growth (1,5% annually). The combination of the currant crisis (1893-1908) and the default of public

finances (1893), which led to the imposition of the International financial control (1897-1945), has

produced a chronic income crisis in the countryside in the 1890s. This crisis opened the way to amassive transatlantic emigration movement (1898-1924), which crippled the population growth rate

(0.8% annually) and, consequently, partly cleared the latent rural underemployment and ameliorated

labor productivity, without eliminating the structural deficiencies of the small-owner under-capitalized

farms. In the Inter-war period the exchange of population between Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria swell

the country with a mass of impoverished refugees, while the American outlet was sealed. Rural

underemployment surged once again.

C h a n g i n g f r o n t i e r s a n d t e r r i t o r i e s

In the meantime, territorially the country was dramatically transformed. It relentlessly

expanded and achieved its present configuration in 1947. In every expansion phase, the Greek territory

and population increased, but at the same time the country incorporated new, usually extended and

structurally different provinces (see Table 1). Only the first incorporation of the small but densely

populated Ionian Republic, in 1865, had associated to the country a relatively more developed territory.

The Ionian land tenure system was different from the independent small-owner economy of the

Kingdom of Greece, but the specialization of the Ionian Islands in the same cash crops (currants and

olive oil) and their heavy dependence on wheat imports made the incorporation relatively frictionless.


3/36

Table 1 The expansion of the Modern Greek State (1832-1947) 3

area Population general populationkm2 (.000) density (inh/km2)

1832 47.516 Peloponnese, Continental Greece, Cyclades 753 15,85

1864 50.211 Ionian Islands 1.365 27,19

1881 63.606 Thessaly and the province of Arta 2.072 32,58

1897 63.212 small loss of territory, no population losses 2.466 39,01

1913 120.887 Macedonia, Epirus, Crete, Samos, Northern Aegean Islands 4.775 39,50

1919 150.176 Thrace (Eastern and Western) 5.536 36,86

1923 129.281 Eastern Thrace ceded to the Turkish Republic 5.802 44,88

1947 131.944 Dodecanese 7.563 57,32

T h e c r i t i c a l I n t e r - W a r p e r i o d

After the long and bloody Wars of 1912-1922, Greece was financially indebted and politically

divided. In the socially turbulent Inter-war period a series of major developments occurred. The

country was burdened by a net inflow of one million refugees (i.e. a 20% increase of the population). A

part of them were resettled in the countryside and profited, along with the former sharecroppers, from

the radical Land Reform. If the social effects of the Reform (i.e. the end of the agrarian question inthe northern provinces and the refugee resettlement) were undoubtedly positive, its economic results

were, and still are, subject to debate. The Greek countryside was finally transformed into a sea of

undercapitalized small-owners, indebted to the newly founded (in 1928) public Agricultural Bank.

Plans were prepared to finance the necessary projects of refugee settlement, land amendment and

drainage for the heavy and marshy northern plains, which were extensively used, partly as pastures and

partly as arable land. But the necessary capital was lacking and only part of the projects wasoperational in the 1930ies, while others were completed after the wars of 1940-1949. State intervention

in agricultural markets, institutional support and public financial engagement in the rural economy

were absolutely novel phenomena in the Inter-war period, but they proved efficient only in the final

years before the Second World War. This War and the Civil War, which followed (1947-1949), were

particularly destructive for the agricultural economy.

Only by having in mind this particularly tumultuous historical trajectory we can interpret

correctly the long-term development and the medium-term fluctuations of the Greek rural economy.

T h e S t a t i s t i c a l s o u r c e s

G i ll b t f j f hi t i l t ti ti t thi f it


4/36

(under-exploited) information which, making reasonable assumptions, can be used to build a

satisfactory database of historical statistics on the agricultural production.

A Bureau of Finance and Statistics (BFS) attached to the Ministry of Interior was founded in

1835 and collected various statistical data ever since. Other administrative departments (customs and

taxation) of the Ministry of Finance kept their own data and archival collections. Some of these data

have been published and others have been released to various authorities and friendly observers. The

major source of information, the BFS, was reorganized in 1859 and began to collect and publish

population, production and trade statistics. After temporarily reaching a low ebb (1882-1910), thecollection of data on production and trade was ameliorated and, in 1913, the BFS was substituted by an

independent National Statistical Service (NSS). The richest and more coherent statistical sources

concern the Greek population. Population enumeration was attempted for the first time in 18284 and the

first effective population census was successfully contacted in 1861. Since then, censuses were

attempted almost once every decade5 and the data have been precise enough for demographers to

attempt a retrospective estimation of the vital population statistics6.

The other group of statistical information was the agricultural censuses attempted since 18617.

The first 1861 agricultural census grossly underestimated the sown arable land, but it has apparently

evaluated more or less correctly the agricultural and livestock output in the small kingdom of Greece8.

Two more agricultural censuses were conducted in 1875 and 1887, but their results were never

officially published. Only aggregate figures are given for the 1875 census9 and the more detailed

results of the 1887 census have been rashly published in an Almanac for the year 189010

. The officially

4 For details see CHOULIARAKIS (1971). Population enumeration was conducted in the

following years : 1839, 1842, 1848, 1851, 1856.5 Population censuses have been conducted in the following years : 1861, 1865 (Ionian Islands

only), 1870, 1879, 1881 (Thessaly and the province of Arta only), 1889, 1896, 1900 (Crete only), 1907,

1911 (Crete only), 1913 (the newly annexed provinces), 1920, 1928, 1940 (data destroyed during the

war), 1947 (the Dodecanese only), 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991.6 See VALAORAS (1960) and SIAMPOS (1971). The BFS has also published the vital population

statistics (1861-1889) but they are inaccurate. Their collection was discontinued until the Inter-war


5/36

published agricultural census in 1911 is of excellent quality and painstaking detail on sown areas and

livestock capital. The published results of the 1911 census offer the most detailed regional

disaggregation of the productive capacity and their details have been surpassed only by that of the 1961

agricultural census. Since 1911 production data were abundantly collected : we possess a series of

agricultural censuses for the years 192911, 193912 and 195013, an agricultural census for the new

provinces of Northern Greece in 1914 and the annual statistics of agricultural production and livestock

capital for the years 1914-193814. This vast collection of data offers detail on cultivated surface,

livestock capital, agricultural and, sometimes, livestock production15.

Totally different sources of information are the annual official Tables of Foreign Trade

published since 185316. They provide coherent data on imports and exports and are one of the rare kind

of sources that offer information on prices. Valuable information can also be obtained by the annual

official publication of the Public revenues and expenses17. Production estimates for various products

have been derived from taxation on agricultural and livestock production since 183018.

Semi-official publications and books by state officials, like Mansolas and Skiadas, heads ofthe BFS, and contemporary economic reviews and bulletins19 give complementary information. Well-

informed contemporary Greek politicians and businessmen and European travelers (merchants,

11 Contemporary critics have observed that the aggregate data of 1929 underestimate total

output because of under-registration of agricultural production in various areas of Northern Greece. Nosuch evidence is discernable in the published data. Output is certainly one of the lowest registered

during the Inter-war period, but contemporary observers who thought that the 1929 production was

particularly poor confirm this fact.12 The data were destroyed during the Second World War. EVELPIDIS (1944) published, during

the War, some preliminary aggregate results.13 Since then agricultural censuses were conducted in 1961, 1971, 1981, and 1991.14 Livestock production is estimated since 1931. An Annuary of the agricultural production

was published by the NSS every year.15 It can also be used to evaluate factor cost prices relative to market prices for the selected

years, cf. supra, p.18.


6/36

diplomats and financiers) who had privileged access to unpublished official data, also provide valuable

additional information. They are of particular interest because they cover the first thirty years of out

study period and fill the gaps when state authorities have been neglecting their task.

T h e K O S T E L E N O S ( 1 9 9 5 ) e s t i m a t e o f a g r i c u l t u r a l o u t p u t

No comprehensive effort has been made to construct a long series of agricultural output until

1995, except for some fragmentary estimates of total agricultural output. Dr G. KOSTELENOS (1995),

studying the Greek GDP (1858-1938), constructed the first such estimate. His method was similar to

the one adopted in this paper, but, when estimating the pre-1914 output, suffers from the following

shortcomings :

Kostelenos did not use the data of the original 1911 agricultural census or the complete series

of official Tables of Foreign Trade. The agricultural statistic of 1887, was rediscovered only

in 1997, and it was unavailable to him when he prepared his databank.

He chose to estimate the wheat output by assuming that per capita consumption was constantfor long intervals of time20. Production of wheat (Px) was assumed to be a function of constant

consumption (Cx+1) minus next years net imports (Mx+1Xx+1). In my estimate wheat

production is a function of next years cereal imports.

Since he had inadequate data on wine production, he estimated the production of wine and

grapes as pro-rata to the (known) production of currants. Unfortunately currants, an export

staple, experienced a very rapid expansion all along the 19th century. On the contrary, wine

was mainly consumed in the internal market and did not experience the same long-term

movement as currants. I have linked wine production with the known average land

productivity (kg of wine per ha) and a relatively acceptable estimation of planted surface.

The Olive oil production was estimated through a very rough method that consisted of filling

the blanks with gross interpolations of production in good and bad years. In order to establish

the quality of each annual olive harvest, Kostelenos used an incomplete set of data from tax

receipts and exports was used. I have established an almost complete series of export and tax

receipt data, which I have used in order to construct a comprehensive series of predictions for

olive oil production.


7/36

It will be shown that my own estimate ends up with an output that is somewhat lower than the

one of KOSTELENOS (1995). It is more important to underline that the new GDP deflator produces an

output which is clearly growing in constant prices, while the older GDP deflator overestimated the

output in constant prices at the middle of the 19th century.

M e t h o d o l o g y : a n o u t p u t m e t h o d

This study is part of a larger research program, which aimed to estimate the Greek GDP

(1830-1939), revising and completing the earlier KOSTELENOS (1995) estimate. I have opted for the

output method. It was the only one that could be used with our kind of data. For the agricultural sector

this meant calculating directly the volume of production for the major agricultural and livestock

products, net of intra-sectoral transfers and intermediate use, and then applying selected prices to

estimate its value at current prices (drachma)21. For those agricultural products for which data were

missing, rational assumptions for mark-ups were made22. Livestock capital has been estimated but we

have very scanty evidence for livestock production before the 1930ies. Simple models were built to

calculate livestock production (meat, milk and wool) from the number of sheep, goats and cattle.

In principle we were interested only in the non-subsistence part of the economy. The

agricultural output I have calculated as a part of the Greek GDP, is thus in effect always lower than the

real physical output of the agricultural economy. It is nevertheless certain than part of the subsistence

production has been introduced in our estimates, especially in the earlier years, because of the indirect

methods used for the calculation of the various components of the agricultural output. Another source

of error relates to the growing percentage of formerly subsistence production that is later marketed and

aggregated into the estimated total agricultural output in the later years. It does not represent a real

growth of physical output, but nevertheless it is now calculated as part of the GDP growth, inflating

the rates of growth. Finally, it is possible that a small part of the non-subsistence production was left

out, especially in the later years. This concerns agricultural goods which are too marginal in value to be

included into the benchmark statistical data and have thus eluded our attention.

We dispose a rather complete series of annual data on selected agricultural products and

livestock capital from 1914 to 1938. Corrections were made to fill the small gaps of data in various

years. During the First World War (1917-1918) some northern provinces were occupied and their

production and population were evidently not aggregated into the data. Meaningful corrections were


8/36

In order to estimate the 1939 production, I used the preserved data from the 1939 census in

combination with data on prices and volumes for 1938,. For the pre-1914 period the agricultural

censuses and statistics of 1861, 1875, 1887 and 1911 provided valuable benchmark years, to fill the

gap. Tax and customs authorities provided data for tithes, imports and exports of various key-products

which can be used to construct long series of volume estimates since 1848. The pre-1848 data are

unreliable, because of changes in the tax tariffs. Only very gross estimates were attempted for this

period.

E s t i m a t i n g t h e v o l u m e o f a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n b e f o r e 1 9 1 4

The Greek agriculture has been traditionally dependent on only a few major products : wheat,

barley, maize, tobacco, olive-oil, wine, currants and dry figs. Livestock production (meat, wool, hides

and milk with its derivatives) was mainly based on the use of two animals : sheep and goats. Other

animals were of lesser importance. Some products (cotton and silkworm cocoons) had a temporary

importance, as in commercialized agricultural production, while others are related to the

modernization of Greek agriculture (like the increased use of cattle and pigs). In this research, I have

calculated the volume of production for each major product and made reasonable assumptions for

mark-ups in order to calculate the value of minor productions (pulses, vegetables, fresh and dry fruits).

W h e a t a n d o t h e r c e r e a l s

Wheat was traditionally the most important cereal in Greece, although the country was

deficient in its production and mainly imported wheat for the consumption in the cities and those rural

areas that were specialized in export agriculture. Only few other cereals were produced and directly

consumed like barley, sowed with wheat (maslin) in the dry Southeastern provinces, and maize, sowed

in the more humid Western provinces. Rye, sorghum and millet were of limited and localized use.

Oats, which was used only as a fodder crop, also grew in the Western part of the country 23.


9/36

average wheat consumption in kg. per capita

8476 75

6778 79

2035 53 60

58

6854

85

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1851-60 1861-70 1871-80 1881-90 1891-900 1901-10 1911-14

production net imports

Figure 1.Average annual consumption of wheat in kg per capita

The annual wheat production is known for 18 separate years, a relatively satisfactory

statistical series used as a dependent variable. It is combined with the volume of imported cereals, for

the years 1851-1914, used as an independent variable24. An econometric regression was sought to

express the relationship between the two variables. Many different options (using other variables as

well) were examined and the best result was attained with an exponential regression linking the

production of wheat (Px) with the imports of cereals of the following year (MCx+1). The fit wassatisfactory (R2 = 0,53, MSE = 0,081 and p < 0,001). The pre-1850 production was estimated by using

the tithe revenues for the years 1833-1865 and the already predictedproduction of wheat for the years

1850-1865 (R2 = 0,93, MSE = 0,121 and p < 0,001)25. The predicted and the known values of the

aggregate wheat production are observed in Figure 2.


10/36

W heat production (known values with red m ark). Trend as a 4-degree polynomial

R2

= 0,8627

0

50.000.000

100.000.000

150.000.000

200.000.000

250.000.000

300.000.000

350.000.000

400.000.000

1833

1836

1839

1842

1845

1848

1851

1854

1857

1860

1863

1866

1869

1872

1875

1878

1881

1884

1887

1890

1893

1896

1899

1902

1905

1908

1911

1914

1917

1920

1923

1926

1929

kg.

Figure 2 Known and predicted values of wheat production

In Figure 1 the long-term development of per capita wheat consumption confirms that the

assumptions of the regression are well founded. The per capita wheat consumption in Greece rises from

an average of 105 kg, in 1851-1860, to 119 and 129 kg in the next two decades. This substantial rise is

undoubtedly due to the displacement of other cereals from wheat. In the 1880s the average

consumption reaches 135 kg per capita and falls to 125 kg in the 1890s, when Greek imports shrink

globally because of the acute crisis of Greek public finances. It rises again to 144 kg in the first decadeof the 20th century and falls to 133 kg in the war years of 1911-1914. CHECK 1911-1940. The wheat

production per capita decreases slowly until the beginning of the 20 th century. Since 1900 the

Thessalian cereal producers, using the newly built railroad network, begun, finally, to provide the

internal market with wheat. Consequently, the wheat estimates are not in contradiction with what we

already know about the evolution of wheat production and consumption in Greece.

Table 2. Coefficients used for the estimation of the production and final use of other cereals

used as a final good as % in produced cereal output

product Italy Greece 1833-92 1893-1920 1920-1940

wheat 95,0% 100,0% 42,0% 43,0% 48,0%

barley 15,0% 25,0% 16,0% 17,0% 16,0%

oats 20 0% 0 0% 1 5% 7 0% 9 0%


11/36

different assumptions have also been tested. Finally, I have opted for the adoption of the standard

EVELPIDIS coefficients because all other reasonable choices made very little aggregate difference26.

T o b a c c o , c o t t o n a n d o t h e r a n n u a l l y s o w n c r o p s

Since I was supposed to calculate a global agricultural output index, I was relieved from the

task of calculating the volume and value of cereals, pulses and other crops used as fodder27. This value

is integrated in the aggregate value of livestock production28. The only other important crops, sown

annually, were vegetables, pulses, potato and other roots, tobacco, cotton and other industrial crops.

Tobacco was a cash crop whose total volume and value grew incessantly since the 1850ies. It only

became an important export product after the incorporation of Thessaly in 1881. Since the

incorporation of Eastern Macedonia and Western Thrace, Greece was transformed into the most

important tobacco producer in the Balkans and tobacco displaced currants as the most important export

staple. Data on the annual volume of tobacco production and exports have been available since 1881.

In order to cover the thirty previous years, I have used the sparse information on production, sown area

and the export data for the 1851-1879 period. The pre-1850 period is covered by two estimates of

production for the years 1840 (volume) and 1846 (value). Data gap was filled with linear interpolations

and minimal and maximal estimates were calculated.

Table 3 Mark-up coefficients on the aggregate value of cereals

pulses minimal maximal

(1833-1892) 1,50% 3,00%

(1893-1913) 2,50% 5,00%

1833-1875 1887 1911

vegetables 1,10% 2,50% 7,50%

minimal maximal

other industrial crops 1% 2%


12/36

Tobacco production (known values with red marks).

The trend is a 5-degree polynomial

R2

= 0,8712

0

2.000.000

4.000.000

6.000.000

8.000.000

10.000.000

12.000.000

14.000.000

1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920

kg.

Figure 3 Known and predicted values of tobacco production

Data for cotton and potato were very sparse and I mostly used linear interpolations between

the known data. In order to estimate the value of pulses and vegetables, a mark-up on the calculated

total not the final one value of aggregate cereal production was adopted. For the other industrial

crops the mark-up was calculated on the aggregated value of cotton and tobacco. Coefficients, built onrelations observed in the benchmark years (1860, 1875, 1887, 1911, 1914-1938), changed every sub-

period and a minimal/maximal value was calculated (see Table 3).

C u r r a n t s , w i n e a n d e d i b l e g r a p e s

The most important Greek export was currants. Until the late 1890 the produced crop was

almost entirely exported. Since 1893, a growing part of the production was kept as extra tax and waslocally processed by the alcohol and beverages industry. Its value has been aggregated into the

industrial sector29. We dispose the full series of volume and value of Greek currant production since

1830.

Thi diff t ith i d li il t i t t i l d ti


13/36

calculate the re-1914 value of edible grapes, which is known for the post-1914 period, I have used a

7% mark-up coefficient (estimated as an average from the known values of the 1914-1921 period).

O l i v e o i l a n d e d i b l e o l i v e s

Olive oil was an important element in my calculations, both because of its growing part in the

aggregate value of the agricultural production and because of its abrupt fluctuation. Only two out of

five olive-oil harvests were successful and this should be reflected in the aggregate output. Information

on the planted surface and the number of olive trees were contradictory and I had to make reasonable

corrections30. The known data on production in the period 1830-1913 covered only 16 years, but I

disposed of two additional series, which reflected the annual fluctuation of the production : the tithe in

cash (1848-1859, 1880-1913) and the volume of exports (1851-1875 and 1887-1913). Various models

were tested and the best fit, for the years 1848-1913, was that of a multiple regression which predicted

the production (Px) using the tithe (Tx+1) and exports (Xx+1) of the following year (R2=0.79, Durbin-

Watson=2.005 and p1


14/36

were missing. For the unknown years (1841-1859 and 1876-1886) the simple method of linear

interpolation was used. The 1833-39 production was assumed as equal to the 1840 production.

For the other dry and fresh fruit, a mark-up coefficient, relative to the 5-year mobile average

of the aggregate value of wine, olive oil and dry figs, was used. It was calculated as a linear

interpolation between two points : the percentage of the value of dry and fresh fruits on the total value

of olive oil, wine and dry figs in 1914 (11,62%, i.e. the average percentage of the period 1914-1938)

and the respective percentage in 1860 (6,17%).

E s t i m a t i n g t h e l i v e s t o c k c a p i t a l

Data on livestock production were missing before 1931. Only in 1860 an estimation of

livestock production in milk, meat, wool, cocoons, wax and honey was officially calculated. What

scholars disposed of usually were estimates of the total number of livestock capital. What I myself

attempted was to produce a relatively reliable series of livestock capital for the most important

livestock : sheep, goats and cattle. Animal husbandry was using natural resources extensively and

transhumant shepherds were directly competing with agriculturists for the use of disposable arable land

in the plains, where the former traditionally rented their winter pastures. Until the Inter-War period,

sheep and goats provided the bulk of livestock products like milk, meat and wool. Cattle was mainly

raised and used for its traction power. Since then a growing number of farms bought milking cows in

order to produce marketable milk and meat. This trend was combined with the radical shrinkage of

winter pastures due to the Land Reform of the 1920ies. As a result the productivity of animals was

raised, but their total number was reduced.

S h e e p a n d G o a t s

The total number of ship and goats is relatively well known, since animal taxation was

assessed on a per capita base. In the 1852-1913 period we know the number of sheep and goats for 27

separate years. We also dispose the aggregate animal taxation for the years 1833-1939. The best fit was

given by a model using the animal tax with one year lag (T x+1) as the independent variable (R2=0.71

and p


15/36

Table 4 The number of animals per km2 and per capita

per capita per km2

sheep goat cattle sheep goat cattle

1833-1842 3,20 2,80 0,38 52 45 6,12

1843-1852 2,00 2,14 0,27 41 44 5,48

1853-1862 2,07 2,04 0,26 47 46 5,75

1863-1872 1,63 1,62 0,20 45 44 5,47

1873-1882 1,42 1,21 0,17 46 39 5,36

1883-1892 1,29 1,01 0,15 44 34 5,26

1893-1902 1,15 0,89 0,13 45 35 5,00

1903-1912 1,24 0,88 0,12 52 37 5,20

1913-1922 1,16 0,76 0,11 44 29 4,15

1923-1932 1,11 0,73 0,14 53 35 6,60

1933-1938 1,18 0,74 0,14 62 39 7,36

1850-1880 1,73 1,70 0,21 44,78 43,59 5,54

1881-1913 1,25 0,93 0,14 47,36 35,10 5,08

1914-1939 1,13 0,73 0,13 52,14 33,58 6,02

The number of animals substantially grew with every territorial expansion of Greece and

subsequently stagnated (i.e. the number of animals per km2 stagnated), which means that in per capita

terms the number of sheep and goats constantly fell (see Table 4). The late Inter-War period is the soleexception to this rule, when the number of sheep and cattle rose both in absolute and relative terms (see

Figure 5).

Number of sheep and goat (known values marked)

0

1.000.000

2.000.000

3.000.000

4.000.000

5.000.000

6.000.000

7.000.000

8.000.000

9.000.000

sheep

goats


16/36

Table 5 Coefficients and functions to calculate the volume of livestock products from sheep and goat

sheep goats

1914-1940

1881-1913

1833-1880

1833-1850

1914-1940

1881-1913

1833-1880

1833-1850

life cycle in years (y) 6,5 7,5 8,5 8 9 10

male as % of herd (m) 3,0% 4,0% 5,0% 3,0% 4,0% 5,0%

annual rate of growth (r) 4,0% 5,0% 6,0% 4,0% 5,0% 6,0%

fecundated females as %(d)

80,0% 80,0% 80,0% 80,0% 80,0% 80,0%

wool (kg) 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,36 0,32 0,48

milk (kg) 44,87 32,05 25,64 12,82 51,28 51,28 25,64 12,82

meat of sheep/goat (kg) 14,40 13,35 12,31 11,79 9,74 7,69

hides of sheep/goat (kg) 3,60 3,00 3,00 0,65 3,90 3,45 3,00 0,65meat of lambs (kg) 8,68 7,92 7,15 5,90 4,87 3,83

hides of lambs (kg) 2,40 2,00 1,00 0,78 2,60 1,15 1,00 0,78

functions using coefficients to calculate the volumes of :

number of sheep/goat woolnumber of slaughtered sheep /y meat and hides of sheep or goats

number of slaughtered lambs N*((d-(m*d)-(2*d/y)-((1+(r*y))/y)) meat, hides of lambs and milk

C a t t l e , m i l k i n g c o w s a n d v e a l c a l v e s

It was more difficult to estimate the number of cattle since I disposed only of a few series of

data, long enough to accept an econometric treatment. The best fit was attained with a linear regression

for the years 1833-1939 (R2=0.75 and p


17/36

Number of cattle (known values marked)

0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

900.000

1.000.000

183

3

183

7

184

1

184

5

184

9

185

3

185

7

186

1

186

5

186

9

187

3

187

7

188

1

188

5

188

9

189

3

189

7

190

1

190

5

190

9

191

3

191

7

192

1

192

5

192

9

193

3

193

7

cattle

oxen & draught cows

calves not-slaughtered

calves born

milking cows

not oxen & draught cows

Figure 6 Known and predicted number of cattle (by category)

Once the number of cattle, milking cows and slaughtered calves and cattle (this last is

considered as equal to the number of not slaughtered calves) was calculated, I applied the coefficients

of Table 6 in order to estimate the livestock production (milk, meat and hides) from cattle.

Table 6 Coefficients for the calculation of the volume of livestock products from cattle

coefficient 1914-1930 1881-1913 1833-1880

milk per milking cow (kg) 193 127 62

meat per slaughtered cattle (kg) 71 66 62

hide per slaughtered cattle (kg) 15 12,5 10

meat per slaughtered calf (kg) 35,75 34 32

hide per slaughtered calf (kg) 8 6,5 5

P r o d u c t i o n e s t i m a t e s f r o m t h e r e s t o f l i v e s t o c k c a p i t a l a n d p r o d u c t i o n

Information on the number of buffaloes, pigs, horses, mules, donkeys, beehives and poultry

was too fragmentary to built regressions estimating their number. In the same time they were relatively

marginal in livestock production counting for less than 10 % of its total value in 1860 and in 1938. It


18/36

The value of newly born horses, donkeys and mules is estimated by multiplying by 4% the

aggregate value of the sheep and goats production (as in 1860). The same variable was

multiplied by 3% (again as in 1860) so that the value of the production of beehives, rabbits

and poultry (meat, eggs, honey and wax) to integrate.

Silkworm growing was an important branch of rural activities. Silk production in itself is an

industrial activity and only the raising of silkworm cocoons for export or for sale to

specialized Greek silk producers was integrated into the agricultural output. Export of cocoons

was registered since 1858 and coincided with the beginning of a long-term fall of production

due to silk grain disease. The newly incorporated provinces of Thessaly gave a new but

modest rise in Greek exports in cocoons. In order to estimate the value of silkworm cocoons, I

used a mark-up coefficient on the aggregate value of agrarian (i.e. excluding livestock)

production : 3% in 1855-1865, 0,5% in 1866-1880 and 1% in 1881-1913.

T h e q u e s t i o n o f p r i c e s a n d d e f l a t o r s

The question of prices and deflators is probably the one that the next generation of economic

historians of Greece will have to intensively address. KOSTELENOS (1995, 310-316) himself underlined

the vulnerability of his (older) GDP deflator. His prices were 1) mostly prices of agricultural and

mineral products and 2) mainly concentrated on the middle years of the 19 th (i.e. 1860 and 1875) and

the early years of the 20th centuries (1914). In building his GDP deflator he used prices of uncertain

quality from 1899. It is precisely in this latter third of the 19 th century that the KOSTELENOS old

GDP Deflator is unsatisfactory. The new deflator constructed by Kostelenos and myself was based on a

more suitable basket of goods (though they are still predominantly agricultural and mineral products)

and has substituted the doubtful 1899 prices with a much more suitable group of prices from 1887.

Furthermore, current prices have been greatly ameliorated thanks to the new data provided

from the Price Index Research Group. They are still mainly prices of agricultural and mineral products

and they all share a major deficiency : they are market prices and not factor-cost prices. We have triedto adjust them by using a mark-down coefficient (ratio of factor to market price) for each set of prices,

calculated from already known prices of benchmark years (1860, 1875, 1887, 1911). Another group of

prices, used when others were unavailable, were market prices in ports of trade (it is more correct to

talk of official estimates of average prices) from the annual Tables of Foreign Trade. Their main defect


19/36

agricultural production. The respective value in constant prices also was estimated by using the new

GDP deflator.

T h e n e w O u t p u t I n d e x

The new output calculated in current prices is shown in figure 7 and in Table 7 (column 4). Its

exponential growth is due to the rapid devaluation of the currency in the Interwar period. The use of

constant prices (deflated with the new GDP deflator) gives a more satisfactory point of view (see Table

7 : column 5). Yet the relentless territorial expansion of the country biases the results. The per capita

output in constant prices gives a better picture. A slow but clear long-term rise is observable. It is best

shown with a 9-year moving average which is steadily growing until the war years in late 1910s. After

a painful shrink of output in the 1920ies, the pre war levels were attained and surpassed in the 1930ies

(see Figure 8).

Agricultural Output (1914=100)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1858

1860

1862

1864

1866

1868

1870

1872

1874

1876

1878

1880

1882

1884

1886

1888

1890

1892

1894

1896

1898

1900

1902

1904

1906

1908

1910

1912

1914

1916

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

Kostelenos (1995) Petmezas (1999)

figure 7 The index of agricultural output in current drachmas

It should be underlined that this rise in per capita terms is due to a relatively faster growth of


20/36

Table 7 Estimated agricultural output and its composition

agricultural outpput as

% of the GDP

agricultural output

in milliondrachmas

average agricultural output

in constant drachmas

each branch as % of agricultural

output

Kostelenos(1995)

Petmezas(1999)

current constant percapita

per km2 per ruralinhab.

arablecultures

plantations livestock

1833-1842 - 83,23% 66,5 88,1 114 1.853 147 30,5% 33,9% 35,6%

1843-1852 - 76,52% 67,8 84,4 86 1.776 114 28,9% 31,6% 39,5%

1853-1862 69,90% 75,10% 113,4 113,0 105 2.378 141 28,7% 35,1% 36,3%

1863-1872 74,48% 73,40% 161,8 147,6 108 2.969 144 31,3% 39,9% 28,9%

1873-1882 71,55% 71,56% 212,7 199,5 118 3.786 161 29,8% 43,3% 26,9%

1883-1892 70,02% 69,96% 290,1 259,9 120 4.085 170 24,5% 41,8% 33,7%1893-1902 66,52% 68,18% 338,8 284,6 117 4.574 171 26,0% 44,1% 29,9%

1903-1912 57,17% 58,83% 362,4 406,0 154 6.423 229 31,7% 38,2% 30,1%

1913-1922 48,02% 61,72% 2.298,4 774,7 155 5.925 240 28,3% 27,6% 44,1%

1923-1932 44,02% 56,41% 15.177,6 916,8 149 7.092 254 29,6% 23,7% 46,7%

1933-1939 49,62% 57,37% 26.370,5 1.266,4 184 9.796 329 38,2% 24,4% 37,4%

The slow rise of agricultural labor productivity is reflected in the slow decrease of the

percentage of the GDP produced in the primary sector (see Table 7 : column 3). It points to the real butmodest expansion of the agricultural production, which was made possible thanks to two different

components : the alleviation of latent agricultural underemployment in the early 20th century and the

extensive but under-exploited natural resources in Northern Greece during the Inter-War Period. Only

in the end of the Inter-war period these resources begun to be efficiently exploited.

Indexes of agricultural output in constant prices (1914=100)

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


21/36

output in constant prices was lower than the level of the final war years ! The recovery of the late 40ies

helps the economy find its early 1840 level only in late 1850ies. This is totally unacceptable, because is

in direct conflict with all the qualitative information we dispose. It is more probable that the 1843military revolt and the subsequent institution of a Constitutional Monarchy, combined with the fiscal

reforms of the period had led to a rapid fall of public revenues and biased our index.

The data on exports and production of the 1830ies and early 1840ies, given by S TRONG (1842)

and LECOMTE (1847) show a rapid post war recovery and point to a relative stagnation in the late

1830ies and early 1840ies. Growth of all cash crops is testified in the late 1840 and early 1850ies.

Cereal and livestock production seems to be simply stagnating in per capita terms33.

Table 8 Correcting the per capita output index for the years 1830-1847 (1910=100)

year index corrected year index corrected year index correc ted

1830 35 1836 56 44 1842 53 43

1831 36 1837 57 46 1843 48 43

1832 38 1838 60 46 1844 49 42

1833 53 39 1839 65 45 1845 46 42

1834 67 41 1840 72 44 1846 50 43

1835 77 42 1841 62 44 1847 42 45

I think that the pre-1848 index should be corrected by using this qualitative information. The

post-1848 output index is of course accepted as it is. A mild per capita production fall (5-10%) can be

accepted for the middle years of the 1840ies. The 1848 per capita output will be equated with the 1837

output and the rate of growth observed in 1833-1837 will be applied to the new 1830-1833 output. Thiswill cure the observed shortcomings and preserve the rapid recovery from war in 1830-1837, which

was observed by all contemporaries. Finally an economic recession (but not a catastrophic depression)

will be accepted for the 1840-1845 period (see Table 8).

H o w p r e c i s e ? C a l o r i e s p e r c a p i t a

The assumptions made in order to build this estimate were intended to assure its medium-term

precision in predicting the (unknown) agricultural output. Yet how precise is this estimate as a

short-term prediction ? Short-term fluctuations are certainly biased because of our assumptions. This

can be shown if we examine the production of Greece in calories (see figure 9). Production per capita

in calories fluctuates between 1.500 and 2.000 calories (all time average 2.023 calories). The pre-1848


22/36

the case of Greece, since the trade in agricultural products was more or less balanced. Trade

deficit was mainly due to imports of manufactures. Imports of wheat and other foodstuffs

were covered by exports of currants and other Greek cash crops35.

Second, to the fact that prices of exports (like currants and tobacco) fluctuated abruptly,

while their content in calories did not. Consequently, the current export value of currants in

terms of imported wheat calculated in calories was, in the short-term, much greater (or

smaller) than its value expressed in monetary terms.

Finally, foodstuffs produced or imported in one year were stocked and consumed a fewmonths later in the next year.

Estimate of per capita calorific production and consumption (with 9-year moving average

(imported meat and milk were not comprised)

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

1833

1837

1841

1845

1849

1853

1857

1861

1865

1869

1873

1877

1881

1885

1889

1893

1897

1901

1905

1909

1913

1917

1921

1925

1929

1933

1937

Figure 9 The agricultural output and consumption per capita in calories.

As a consequence, the estimated production per capita in calories can not fully reflect the

countrys consumption in the short term. So we should not expect it to show stability (as the per capita

consumption should have done). A 9-year moving average, which reduces the short-term fluctuation,

gives a better picture of the balance of the per capita input in calories. An average estimate of


23/36

Table 9 Alimentary balance in calories

produced calories consumed calories % of produced

1853-1862 2.256 1851-1862 2.373 94,1%1863-1872 2.161 1863-1875 2.431 88,1%

1873-1882 2.017

1883-1892 1.980 1887-1892 2.503 81,2%

1893-1902 1.934 1893-1902 2.373 81,5%

1903-1912 2.132 1903-1912 2.627 81,2%

1913-1922 1.653 1913-1922 2.002 76,4%

1923-1932 1.469 1923-1932 2.346 62,5%

1933-1938 2.187 1933-1939 2.857 78,2%

C o m p a r i n g w i t h K

O S T E L E N O S

( 1 9 9 5 )

In order to compare the new output with the old one, I will limit myself to the 1858-1938

period, when out data is of better quality. As shown in figure 7 and Table 7, the new revised output is

constantly lower in current prices than the old one36 until the First World War and it shows a higher

growth rate. From 1915 until the 1931 crisis it becomes larger and then it shrinks once again to a lower

level than that of KOSTELENOS (1995) estimate. Things do not change if we deflate by using the 1914

golden drachma.

Comparing per capita agricultural output

(the trends are 9-year moving averages)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1858

1860

1862

1864

1866

1868

1870

1872

1874

1876

1878

1880

1882

1884

1886

1888

1890

1892

1894

1896

1898

1900

1902

1904

1906

1908

1910

1912

1914

1916

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

base : 1914=100

Kostelenos (1995) Petmezas (1999)


24/36

final years of the 1890ies. Then it rises rapidly and reaches Kostelenoss in 1914. It is substantially

higher until 1931. Since 1932 it is a bit lower. Things change when the new GDP deflator is used,

because it does not tend to enlarge the output of the earlier decades as the old Kostelenos deflator did.My agricultural output estimate is constantly lower than the Kostelenos estimate up to 1905. Since then

it is almost always slightly larger until the 1930s when it falls back. All this is due to the amelioration

of the new deflator especially in the years 1875-1905. In fact the major difference with Kostelenos is in

the quality of the deflator used. The new deflator produced a more convincing per capita series. Instead

of stagnating production since the 1860ies, we get the image of a slowly growing agricultural economy.

The periodization of this growth is the next crucial element of my findings.

R e v i e w i n g t h e p e r i o d i z a t i o n o f t h e g r o w t h o f a g r i c u l t u r a l o u t p u t

Using the per capita index it becomes evident that the capacity of the population to feed itself

with a stagnating technology reached an ecological limit in the last decade of the 19 th century. The

observed per capita amelioration in the early 20th century is due to the transatlantic emigration. Since

1911, an abundant year, the per capita index fluctuated abruptly but stagnated in the medium-term (seeTable 10). The first Inter-War decade ended with a major crisis, which was overcome only in the

1930ies when the output grew again as a result of considerable State intervention. The movement of the

per km2 index correctly shows two things. First, that the post 1914 integration of Northern Greece has

substantially lowered the percentage of land in use and led to an aggregate fall in land productivity.

Second, that the Greek agriculturists have constantly expanded the land under use and its productivity.

No break through in labor productivity is recorded.

Since output fluctuates vividly, I have chosen to use instead the 9-year moving averages,

which are less dependent on conjectural fluctuation, in order to calculate the compound rates of growth.

If we examine the compound annual rates of growth in selected time-spans, we can make the following

observations (see Table 10). In the early period output per capita rose steeply, because of slow

population growth (1% in 1848-1864). In the next period, due to high population rate (1.5% annually),

the per capita output barely outpaced the population growth (0,3%). Notice that the growth rate of the

output per km2 did not change (2,4%). In the next period output rose as fast, but since the transatlantic

migration had alleviated population pressure from the early 1900, per capita rose fast and reached its

pre-1930ies record level in 1911. The difference in the two sub-periods : 1881-1895 and 1896-1912 is2


25/36

exaggerated. In the late 1930ies the agricultural economy probably reached the upper limit of its

potential rise.

Table 10 Compound annual growth rate of real agricultural output (calculations have been made on the

9-year moving averages)

population Kostelenos percapita

Petmezasoutput

per capita per km2 calories percapita

1848-1864 1.0% 2.4% 1.4% 2.4% 2.181

1865-1880 2.4% 0.1% 2.8% 0.3% 2.4% 2.098

1881-1912 1.5% -0.3% 2.8% 1.3% 2.1% 2.001

1881-1895 2.2% 0.0% 3.3% 1.1% 1.8% 1.930

1896-1912 0.9% -0.5% 2.5% 1.5% 2.5% 2.065

1913-1922 6.2% -1.0% 6.3% 0.0% -1.1% 1.653

1923-1931 2.1% -0.4% 1.6% -0.6% 1.9% 1.469

1932-1939 1.4% 3.8% 4.0% 2.6% 4.0% 2.259

1848-1939 2,2% 0,0% 3,1% 0,9% 2,0% 2.023

1951-1981 0,8% 3,2% 2.4%

The 1939ies will not be the end of the long trough. The Second World War, followed by a

ruthless and bloody civil war in 1947-1949, once again dilapidated the accumulated slow progress of

Inter-war period. The data retrieved in the 1950 agricultural census shows that the agricultural output

had been brought back to its early Inter-War levels.

C o m p a r i n g w i t h o t h e r E u r o p e a n a n d B a l k a n c o u n t r i e s .

One final question will be addressed in this paper, namely the comparison of the Greek to

other Mediterranean and Balkan examples. In ca. 1910 Greece produced an average per capita

agricultural output of 138 FF37, comparable to Portuguese (143 FF in 1905)38 and the Bulgarian

(155 FF in 1910)39, clearly greater than the Serbian (108 FF in 1910) and substantially lower than the

Spanish (172 FF in 1909/1913)40 and the Italian (234 FF in 1913)41 (cf. Figure 12).

37 This is the average per capita production of the years 1906-1914 in current prices, at a time

when the drachma was at a par with the FF.38 According to LAINS & SILVEIRA E SOUSA (1998, 956), the total value of the Portuguese

agricultural output in 1900/1909 was 154,770 contos. Total population was 5,66 millions. One conto


26/36

In Table 12 and in Figure 11 a comparison of the output per capita indexes of Greece, Italy,

Portugal, Serbia and Bulgaria is attempted. Italy presents a development comparable to that of Greece

until the 1910s : slow per capita growth in the 1860ies and 1870ies, and clear per capita decrease in the1880is and 1890ies to be followed by a rapid increase in the 1898-1914 period. In the Inter-war period

the pre-war levels were not attained, but Italy was not in agricultural depression, like Greece was. The

Portuguese case, on the contrary seemed to follow the inverse trajectory than Greece until 1914. Steady

growth in the 1860is-1880 was followed by a crisis in the 1887-1896. The maximum level was attained

in the early 1900is and subsequently per capita output shrank42. In the Spanish case, as studied by

Simpson, the per capita output (in 1910 prices) was stagnant between 1891-1910 and grew since thenand until the Spanish civil War (See Table 11). According to PALAIRET (1997), Serbia and Bulgaria

experienced an agricultural regression in the 19th century, which was temporarily redressed at the

beginning of the 20th century and deteriorated again just before the Balkan Wars. On the contrary, most

Mediterranean cases showed a slow but clear growth, without substantial structural transformations

until the Inter-War period.

Table 11 The final product of Spanish Agriculture (SIMPSON 1995, 197-200)

year mil lion curr entpesetas

million constantpesetas (1910)

population (millions) per capita constantpesetas

per capita FF in1910 exch. rate

1891/5 2.714 3.299 17,9 184 171

1897/1901 3.215 3.308 18,6 178 165

1909/13 3.710 3.710 20,0 186 172

1929/33 8.587 4.741 23,5 202 187

In sum, Greece seemed to share some of the major characteristics of Mediterranean

agriculture. In the 19th century the slow per capita growth was mainly sustained through the increased

efficiency of the use of land, while the amelioration in the use of agricultural labor was minimal.

Greece contrary to the other Balkan states had been able to converge towards the other

Mediterranean agricultural economies until the First World War. This movement was arrested during

the second and third decade of the 20th century. The Greek agriculture had been able to sustain a

relatively satisfactory compound annual growth rate in the 19 th century, in spite of rapid population

growth. Transatlantic emigration prolonged this period of slow growth, but in the first decade of the

Inter-War period ecological constraints and institutional reforms threw the agricultural economy into a

long depression with negative growth rates.


27/36

Figure 11 Indexes of agricultural output per capita

Agricultural Output per capita

50

100

150

200

250

300

Agricultural Output per capita (1910=100)

R2

= 0,6975

50

90

130

170

210

1848

1851

1854

1857

1860

1863

1866

1869

1872

1875

1878

1881

1884

1887

1890

1893

1896

1899

1902

1905

1908

1911

1914

1917

1920

1923

1926

1929

1932

1935

1938

Greece Italy Portugal 4-dgr polynom Greece


28/36

Table 12 The agricultural output and output per capita index of selected Mediterranean and Balkan

States (1910=100)43

Greece Italy Portugal Serbia Bulgaria

Output per capita Output per capita Output per capita per capita p er capita

1848 18 46 83 130

1849 19 48 70 109

1850 20 53 68 105

1851 23 55 75 115

1852 20 67 73 112

1853 21 58 72 109

1854 23 70 65 98

1855 20 61 77 1151856 23 90 56 84

1857 28 85 65 97

1858 28 75 61 89

1859 29 94 58 84 151

1860 27 81 59 86 147

1861 29 76 74 103 60 87 147

1862 29 78 76 106 62 89 141

1863 29 85 74 101 56 80 146

1864 33 101 77 105 59 83 138

1865 32 76 81 110 66 93 136 117

1866 32 78 84 112 66 91 135 116

1867 36 94 74 98 68 95 139

1868 36 85 80 106 68 94 145

1869 33 71 82 108 68 94 136

1870 35 89 81 106 70 96 145 119

1871 39 105 82 107 65 88 139

1872 36 79 80 103 64 86 138

1873 43 88 84 108 65 87 140 113

1874 43 90 82 105 69 91 145

1875 42 87 86 109 71 93 143

1876 43 82 83 105 71 93

1877 44 85 83 104 69 90 113

1878 49 78 84 105 68 88

1879 50 79 86 107 69 89 143 85

1880 49 83 90 111 73 93 141 92

1881 54 74 75 92 74 93 141 76

1882 58 87 86 105 74 93 147 88

1883 58 97 82 99 73 91 137 82

1884 68 106 81 98 85 105 134 85

1885 68 93 81 97 84 103 133 84

1886 65 80 86 103 88 107 141 75

1887 78 89 83 98 99 119 132 86

1888 79 88 82 96 98 117 132 96

1889 73 84 74 86 98 116 169 107

1890 71 87 86 100 96 112 128 91

1891 65 92 91 105 97 112 133 106

1892 67 84 82 94 97 112 122 106


29/36

1903 93 69 103 110 107 114 97 99

1904 96 67 100 105 111 117 94 102

1905 103 81 102 106 105 109 109 97

1906 100 91 99 103 104 107 122 1011907 104 99 116 119 97 100 94 72

1908 102 96 107 109 115 117 115 97

1909 109 113 118 119 109 110 116 88

1910 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1911 144 151 115 114 109 108 111 102

1912 133 137 111 109 88 87 96 97

1913 149 85 124 122 83 82 89

1914 214 141 107 104 88 85 71

1915 202 139 97 94 77 75

1916 213 142 104 100

1917 207 210 104 100

1918 218 121 107 104

1919 191 131 100 98

1920 214 132 106 104

1921 180 121 104 100

1922 204 134 110 105

1923 210 124 120 114

1924 220 136 115 108

1925 218 125 122 114

1926 233 130 122 114

1927 231 131 111 102

1928 250 133 120 110

1929 236 110 125 113

1930 247 116 111 100

1931 238 108 116 103

1932 261 127 126 112

1933 294 141 114 100

1934 309 144 108 95

1935 336 150 118 102

1936 315 144 107 92

1937 388 172 120 1031938 365 160 121 102

1939 323 139 109 91

R e f e r e n c e s

R.A.H. BICKFORD-SMITH (1893) Greece under King George, London.

G. CHOULIARAKIS (1972) o , 1821-1971, in IBID.

(ed.) , 1821-1971, Athens, pp.15-111.

G. DERTILIS (1993) . , Athens.

P. ERCOLANI (1969) Documentazione statistica di base, in Lo sviluppo economico in Italia, (ed.


30/36

A. MANSOLAS (1876) , 1875, Athens.

M. PALAIRET (1997) The Balkan Economies, 1800-1914, Cambridge.

S. PETMEZAS (2003) 19 . ,

: , Athens.

S. PETMEZAS and C. KOSTIS (1998) Growth and stagnation in the Greek Economy, 1830-1940

(working paper).

G. SIAMPOS (1973) (1821-1965), Athens.

J. SIMPSON (1997) Agricultural production and productivity of Spain, in The Economic

Modernisation of Spain, Aldshot, p.181-220.

F. STRONG (1842) Greece as a Kingdom, London.

V.VALAORAS (1960) A Reconstruction of the Demographic History of Modern Greece, Milbank

Memorial Fund Quarterly, vol.38, pp.114-139.

V. ZAMAGNI (1975) Le radici agricole del dualismo italiano, Nuova Rivista Storica, vol.59, pp.55-99.

(UOA/NBG 2000) , 1830-1939 (series :

.

), Athens (forthcoming)

3


31/36

3

rd Conference of the European Historical Economics Society

A d d i t i o n a l T a b l e s

Table 13 Agrarian Production in thousand tons (known values with bold characters)

wheat andmaslin

barley maize and sorgo oats rye tobacco cottons currants wine olive oil dry figs

1833 72,33 22,25 41,73 2,09 0,70 n.a. n.a. 2,80 62,79 8,32 2,34

1834 87,71 26,99 50,60 2,53 0,84 n.a. n.a. 2,23 63,42 12,82 2,34

1835 108,69 33,44 62,71 3,14 1,05 n.a. n.a. 3,52 64,06 14,25 2,34

1836 95,90 29,51 55,32 2,77 0,92 n.a. n.a. 3,12 64,71 12,16 2,34

1837 91,74 28,23 52,93 2,65 0,88 n.a. n.a. 3,31 65,36 11,48 2,341838 99,49 30,61 57,40 2,87 0,96 n.a. n.a. 3,11 66,02 12,75 2,34

1839 113,84 35,03 65,68 3,28 1,09 n.a. n.a. 4,12 66,68 15,09 2,34

1840 119,33 36,72 68,85 3,44 1,15 0,58 n.a. 4,79 67,35 15,98 2,34

1841 105,97 32,61 61,13 3,06 1,02 n.a. n.a. 4,71 68,03 13,80 2,32

1842 87,39 26,89 50,42 2,52 0,84 n.a. n.a. 5,67 68,72 10,30 2,30

1843 81,39 25,04 46,96 2,35 0,78 n.a. n.a. 6,64 69,41 9,80 2,28

1844 91,51 28,16 52,79 2,64 0,88 n.a. n.a. 7,88 70,11 11,45 2,25

1845 81,68 25,13 47,12 2,36 0,79 n.a. 1,28 8,75 70,81 7,82 2,23

1846 115,51 35,54 66,64 3,33 1,11 n.a. 1,18 11,71 71,53 9,30 2,21

1847 70,28 21,62 40,55 2,03 0,68 n.a. 1,08 14,52 72,25 3,95 2,181848 78,11 24,03 45,06 2,25 0,75 n.a. 0,98 15,29 72,98 9,26 2,16

1849 85,73 26,38 49,46 2,47 0,82 n.a. 0,88 16,27 73,71 10,50 2,14

1850 111,75 34,38 64,47 3,22 1,07 n.a. 0,77 19,50 74,45 10,25 2,11

1851 116,63 35,89 67,29 3,36 1,12 0,56 0,67 26,24 75,20 9,61 2,09

1852 104,35 32,11 60,20 3,01 1,00 0,53 0,57 13,39 75,96 11,79 1,94

1853 109,69 33,75 63,28 3,16 1,05 1,03 0,47 6,85 76,73 12,73 2,00

1854 108,55 33,40 62,62 3,13 1,04 0,76 0,37 6,70 77,50 17,85 2,13

1855 91,55 26,67 77,07 4,49 1,19 1,23 0,27 8,56 78,28 2,05 3,57

1856 104,14 32,04 60,08 3,00 1,00 0,98 0,56 27,22 79,07 18,91 5,19

1857 162,40 59,56 103,20 4,83 2,02 1,90 1,04 23,11 79,86 7,49 7,061858 93,25 32,36 75,18 2,33 0,81 1,16 0,71 33,69 113,88 16,44 9,46

1859 117,51 36,16 67,79 3,39 1,13 1,22 1,19 34,73 81,48 20,02 8,47

1860 118,10 36,71 73,89 3,09 1,74 1,37 1,27 33,41 113,90 7,49 6,31

1861 105,75 32,54 61,01 3,05 1,02 2,01 1,25 43,72 83,34 20,14 10,69

1862 115,70 35,60 66,75 3,34 1,11 0,87 1,61 50,71 84,40 12,55 11,43

1863 115,42 35,51 66,59 3,33 1,11 0,81 3,95 58,08 85,47 11,57 11,88

1864 138,16 40,15 79,16 3,99 1,33 2,29 10,92 51,73 86,55 15,52 11,35

S. Petmezas Agricultural Output of Greece (1833-1939)


32/36

g p ( )

1865 150,23 46,23 86,67 4,33 1,44 2,32 5,31 53,47 109,76 10,66 12,27

1866 133,52 41,08 77,03 3,85 1,28 1,20 3,32 55,87 112,37 14,98 12,66

1867 158,74 44,94 79,46 4,58 1,53 1,65 4,57 67,27 115,04 20,63 12,76

1868 127,02 39,08 73,28 3,66 1,22 1,36 6,79 56,53 117,80 23,94 14,91

1869 139,95 43,06 80,74 4,04 1,35 2,07 3,07 53,18 120,64 17,53 14,99

1870 160,44 49,37 92,56 4,63 1,54 0,89 4,29 55,06 123,56 21,57 15,16

1871 163,00 50,15 94,04 4,70 1,57 1,06 7,37 83,12 126,57 22,48 12,01

1872 108,50 33,38 62,59 3,13 1,04 2,78 6,92 73,10 129,66 24,33 12,10

1873 119,16 36,67 68,75 3,44 1,15 2,96 6,48 74,52 132,85 22,85 15,61

1874 160,81 49,48 92,77 4,64 1,55 3,50 6,73 78,38 136,13 26,23 15,50

1875 154,67 47,83 80,99 2,19 0,45 4,01 6,99 75,00 125,18 25,64 12,34

1876 137,50 42,31 79,33 3,97 1,32 4,68 6,73 88,71 141,51 24,36 12,41

1877 164,77 50,70 95,06 4,75 1,58 4,08 6,47 82,68 143,57 19,25 12,47

1878 155,30 47,78 89,60 4,48 1,49 3,89 6,21 104,40 145,69 22,25 12,54

1879 163,13 50,19 94,11 4,71 1,57 4,12 5,95 94,77 147,87 18,18 12,60

1880 189,86 58,42 109,53 5,48 1,83 4,22 5,69 93,65 150,11 14,19 12,67

1881 176,72 54,37 101,95 5,10 1,70 3,56 5,43 127,20 166,02 14,05 12,74

1882 151,99 46,77 87,69 4,38 1,46 3,29 5,17 108,89 168,60 17,72 12,80

1883 157,45 48,44 90,83 4,54 1,51 2,88 4,92 115,10 171,26 15,27 12,87

1884 200,72 61,76 115,80 5,79 1,93 3,89 4,66 129,26 173,99 19,12 12,93

1885 215,54 66,32 124,35 6,22 2,07 5,46 4,40 113,51 176,81 14,85 13,00

1886 162,01 49,85 93,47 4,67 1,56 3,78 4,14 127,61 199,99 18,08 13,06

1887 251,50 60,86 99,63 9,31 2,42 4,22 3,88 133,78 220,96 40,59 13,13

1888 232,77 71,62 134,29 6,71 2,24 3,67 3,86 162,29 175,99 22,57 10,83

1889 185,72 57,14 107,15 5,36 1,79 4,28 3,84 151,70 179,99 34,44 11,94

1890 203,91 62,74 117,64 5,88 1,96 4,31 3,83 149,46 192,13 28,33 13,08

1891 164,16 50,51 94,71 4,74 1,58 3,67 3,81 165,12 202,63 12,82 15,30

1892 163,20 50,22 94,15 4,71 1,57 4,02 3,79 117,60 199,99 28,73 11,89

1893 169,14 59,90 88,10 24,67 1,80 3,64 3,77 168,48 202,05 63,67 12,42

1894 170,57 60,41 88,84 24,87 1,82 4,23 3,76 152,16 205,47 40,97 10,30

1895 134,31 47,57 69,96 19,59 1,43 4,69 3,74 180,48 159,99 35,06 10,19

1896 159,50 56,49 83,07 23,26 1,70 5,33 3,72 158,40 214,99 65,04 6,94

1897 206,91 73,28 107,77 30,17 2,21 4,28 3,70 132,00 120,00 24,00 11,69

1898 210,69 74,62 109,73 30,73 2,25 4,53 3,69 171,84 165,09 57,00 9,79

1899 198,73 70,38 103,50 28,98 2,12 4,76 3,67 145,92 125,39 13,77 12,21

1900 232,70 83,12 121,78 24,15 2,71 6,88 3,65 47,04 7,70 59,25 12,26

1901 216,06 64,33 108,11 13,75 2,28 7,47 3,65 144,00 110,00 45,83 8,97

1902 199,96 70,82 104,14 29,16 2,13 5,05 3,65 161,76 199,99 47,86 7,72

1903 172,48 61,09 89,83 25,15 1,84 9,24 3,65 186,72 129,99 56,11 9,62



33/36

1904 197,03 69,78 102,62 28,73 2,10 9,37 3,65 154,56 179,99 34,92 7,00

1905 252,57 89,45 131,55 36,83 2,69 10,02 4,43 164,16 110,00 52,93 8,25

1906 255,33 90,43 132,99 37,24 2,72 8,01 5,21 138,24 209,30 31,47 10,56

1907 230,60 81,67 120,10 33,63 2,46 4,71 5,99 159,36 207,36 58,75 8,10

1908 211,31 74,84 110,06 30,82 2,25 8,91 6,77 191,04 205,45 42,91 10,37

1909 262,94 93,12 136,95 38,34 2,80 10,19 7,55 188,64 203,56 50,00 8,81

1910 274,21 97,12 142,82 39,99 2,92 9,91 8,34 121,44 201,69 14,28 6,97

1911 343,48 80,39 151,19 32,34 5,56 12,73 9,12 139,80 323,07 82,51 21,86

1912 222,28 78,73 115,77 32,42 2,37 16,06 9,76 173,76 249,99 66,85 28,20

1913 212,64 75,31 110,75 31,01 2,27 14,55 10,41 156,48 196,21 78,57 22,44

1914 388,01 133,35 238,89 53,88 60,16 25,06 11,05 181,10 383,13 18,86 14,47

1915 336,50 117,17 195,35 50,47 9,04 14,42 6,70 161,40 353,86 59,53 12,28

1916 304,06 115,44 160,19 44,79 8,29 18,37 5,14 145,60 286,14 104,70 10,10

1917 356,80 126,19 155,24 51,77 17,66 27,78 4,47 141,60 302,65 71,09 17,09

1918 425,65 158,03 164,24 65,89 25,70 30,35 5,83 124,20 317,39 95,67 19,75

1919 300,48 118,31 191,82 55,55 28,52 29,69 7,39 133,20 266,65 55,23 13,93

1920 343,99 135,11 203,80 60,78 26,28 31,68 4,35 137,30 174,87 143,07 19,77

1921 319,33 128,51 191,55 53,47 27,14 23,35 3,89 129,80 187,30 44,66 16,31

1922 272,05 128,82 143,18 68,10 27,65 25,79 6,05 201,60 179,40 82,18 17,87

1923 270,62 117,31 162,18 58,22 15,80 57,77 8,04 150,90 177,80 53,27 15,96

1924 226,93 93,77 156,18 44,70 23,15 50,30 10,28 185,40 230,13 103,48 19,64

1925 329,00 151,24 172,78 79,35 39,79 60,83 10,56 177,80 236,28 63,81 18,75

1926 365,50 165,90 206,55 71,97 40,64 61,38 12,33 174,30 269,20 61,43 14,78

1927 380,12 158,31 129,80 67,49 38,23 63,22 9,09 169,90 227,01 72,40 15,67

1928 379,12 157,77 128,84 76,15 43,96 58,74 10,75 170,70 307,52 100,07 18,64

1929 329,55 103,54 177,80 60,65 34,16 68,74 11,03 139,30 254,62 79,47 12,19

1930 283,94 170,50 172,78 85,51 46,65 65,87 11,67 170,60 220,95 97,33 20,98

1931 334,28 155,58 158,71 76,56 45,72 43,22 9,88 100,80 194,54 103,70 15,81

1932 499,58 193,38 213,52 99,31 53,00 29,26 15,89 189,20 381,46 134,32 29,39

1933 819,39 229,47 273,31 134,37 71,11 54,88 23,01 167,20 386,65 105,36 23,56

1934 731,24 195,86 210,92 98,75 62,66 41,82 26,15 207,10 363,79 136,28 26,33

1935 776,12 196,58 191,48 103,28 55,52 46,18 35,34 213,10 500,48 91,93 28,21



34/36

1936 570,44 153,66 234,16 94,38 50,86 80,97 42,13 177,00 192,08 72,57 21,64

1937 861,67 219,10 322,60 134,32 65,26 69,31 54,56 189,20 337,27 187,47 32,65

1938 1.030,21 221,07 217,38 131,90 57,67 48,07 45,30 187,50 464,53 102,81 32,34

1939 971,90 187,00 308,50 129,80 41,00 57,88 45,06 124,20 633,50

Table 14 Livestock capital in thousands of animal heads and production in thousand tons (known values with bold characters)

sheep goats cattle non-draft cattle milking cows non slaughteredcalves

slaughteredcalves

meat milk wool hides

1833 1.380 2.035 197 20 8 31 26 19,84 41,25 2,30 4,14

1834 1.398 2.036 198 21 8 31 26 19,99 41,50 2,32 4,17

1835 2.681 2.182 269 98 37 42 36 30,44 60,62 3,63 5,92

1836 2.579 2.167 262 90 34 41 35 29,58 59,03 3,52 5,78

1837 2.607 2.171 264 92 35 41 35 29,82 59,46 3,55 5,82

1838 2.668 2.180 268 97 37 42 36 30,34 60,43 3,61 5,90

1839 2.566 2.165 261 89 34 41 35 29,47 58,82 3,51 5,76

1840 2.615 2.172 264 92 35 41 35 29,89 59,59 3,56 5,83

1841 2.692 2.183 270 98 38 42 36 30,54 60,80 3,64 5,94

1842 2.663 2.179 268 96 37 42 36 30,30 60,35 3,61 5,90

1843 2.281 2.127 242 69 26 38 32 27,08 54,43 3,22 5,35

1844 2.022 2.106 235 60 23 37 31 25,11 50,84 2,96 5,03

1845 1.963 2.089 223 49 19 35 30 24,48 49,65 2,89 4,92

1846 2.015 2.095 226 52 20 35 30 24,90 50,42 2,94 4,99

1847 2.025 2.096 227 52 20 35 30 24,98 50,57 2,95 5,00

1848 2.015 2.095 226 52 20 35 30 24,89 50,42 2,94 4,99

1849 1.946 2.087 223 48 18 35 30 24,34 49,40 2,87 4,89

1850 1.781 2.070 214 39 15 33 29 23,01 46,98 2,71 4,67

1851 1.762 2.068 213 38 14 33 28 22,86 92,52 2,69 4,65

1852 1.928 2.087 224 71 27 35 30 24,23 97,80 2,86 4,88

1853 2.041 2.098 228 53 20 35 30 25,11 100,36 2,97 5,02

1854 2.182 2.114 236 62 24 37 31 26,26 104,38 3,11 5,22

1855 2.222 2.119 238 65 25 37 32 26,59 105,52 3,16 5,27

1856 2.236 2.121 239 66 25 37 32 26,71 105,93 3,17 5,29

1857 2.093 2.104 231 57 21 36 31 25,53 101,82 3,02 5,09

1858 2.123 2.107 232 58 22 36 31 25,78 102,67 3,05 5,13

1859 2.426 2.248 242 79 30 38 32 28,54 113,86 3,41 5,65

1860 2.569 2.407 248 80 30 39 33 30,21 121,06 3,63 5,99

1861 2.158 2.162 236 62 23 37 31 26,27 104,88 3,11 5,24

1862 2.270 2.437 235 78 29 37 31 28,05 114,43 3,35 5,66



35/36

1863 1.855 2.339 216 40 15 34 29 24,54 101,20 2,91 5,04

1864 1.739 2.331 227 53 19 35 30 23,86 98,45 2,79 4,93

1865 1.779 2.289 228 57 21 35 30 23,99 98,54 2,81 4,93

1866 2.098 2.104 231 57 21 36 31 25,58 101,94 3,03 5,10

1867 2.496 2.155 256 84 31 40 34 28,88 113,41 3,44 5,66

1868 2.375 2.139 248 75 27 39 33 27,86 109,87 3,31 5,49

1869 2.175 2.113 235 62 22 37 31 26,21 104,11 3,11 5,21

1870 2.177 2.114 236 62 22 37 31 26,23 104,18 3,11 5,21

1871 2.209 2.118 237 64 23 37 32 26,49 105,09 3,14 5,25

1872 2.246 2.122 240 66 24 37 32 26,79 106,13 3,18 5,31

1873 3.000 1.811 237 50 18 37 32 30,86 116,75 3,75 5,82

1874 2.292 1.837 241 50 18 38 32 26,08 100,16 3,09 5,06

1875 1.968 1.760 222 44 15 35 30 23,28 90,31 2,74 4,57

1876 1.959 2.089 223 49 17 35 30 24,44 97,93 2,89 4,91

1877 1.993 2.092 225 51 17 35 30 24,72 98,88 2,92 4,96

1878 2.393 2.141 249 76 25 39 33 28,01 110,24 3,33 5,51

1879 2.483 2.153 255 83 27 40 34 28,77 112,82 3,42 5,64

1880 2.405 2.143 250 77 25 39 33 28,11 110,54 3,34 5,53

1881 2.266 2.000 251 76 24 39 33 31,87 171,34 2,82 7,80

1882 3.302 2.545 289 150 48 45 39 43,51 233,37 3,99 10,68

1883 3.282 2.400 300 138 45 47 40 42,80 225,29 3,92 10,48

1884 3.465 2.511 317 156 47 49 42 45,07 236,71 4,14 11,04

1885 3.082 2.260 294 149 42 46 39 40,39 211,92 3,69 9,88

1886 2.638 1.957 277 131 38 43 37 35,07 182,76 3,16 8,56

1887 2.620 1.981 303 126 37 47 40 35,43 183,26 3,15 8,63

1888 3.186 2.263 309 141 42 48 41 41,48 215,28 3,79 10,14

1889 2.734 2.190 273 102 30 42 36 36,92 196,02 3,33 9,04

1890 2.603 2.170 263 92 27 41 35 35,62 190,57 3,20 8,72

1891 2.441 2.019 281 94 28 44 37 33,83 178,25 2,99 8,26

1892 2.499 2.066 276 105 31 43 37 34,45 182,72 3,06 8,42

1893 2.552 2.095 290 87 26 45 39 35,24 185,12 3,13 8,60

1894 2.611 2.018 286 92 27 45 38 35,28 183,44 3,16 8,61

1895 2.717 2.047 277 92 27 43 37 36,15 188,22 3,27 8,83

1896 3.090 2.231 295 102 30 46 39 40,33 209,24 3,69 9,86

1897 2.136 1.864 200 51 15 31 27 29,40 159,52 2,65 7,22

1898 2.513 2.197 209 61 19 33 28 34,22 187,96 3,12 8,43

1899 3.518 2.542 294 117 35 46 39 45,31 238,42 4,20 11,12

1900 3.076 2.244 300 131 39 47 40 40,36 210,54 3,68 9,87

1901 2.758 2.193 275 104 30 43 37 37,15 196,96 3,35 9,10



36/36

1902 2.725 2.188 272 101 29 42 36 36,83 195,55 3,32 9,02

1903 2.741 2.191 273 102 29 43 36 36,99 196,17 3,34 9,06

1904 2.803 2.200 278 107 30 43 37 37,60 198,70 3,40 9,201905 2.844 2.207 281 111 31 44 37 38,02 200,39 3,44 9,30

1906 2.858 2.209 282 112 31 44 38 38,15 200,91 3,46 9,34

1907 2.845 2.213 281 111 30 44 37 38,05 200,63 3,44 9,31

1908 2.827 2.204 280 109 29 44 37 37,85 199,53 3,42 9,26

1909 2.848 2.207 281 111 29 44 38 38,06 200,38 3,45 9,31

1910 2.893 2.214 285 115 30 44 38 38,51 202,21 3,49 9,42

1911 3.545 2.638 299 131 34 41 35 45,59 243,77 4,25 11,22

1912 4.123 2.923 313 139 36 43 37 51,85 276,02 4,90 12,77

1913 5.323 3.457 334 148 38 46 40 64,46 339,94 6,23 15,91

1914 6.266 4.448 379 176 45 44 38 91,20 518,70 7,62 28,43

1915 5.994 4.219 406 202 52 47 40 87,53 496,08 7,28 27,22

1916 5.811 4.070 435 227 58 50 43 85,21 481,43 7,05 26,44

1917 5.548 3.575 571 287 82 66 57 81,24 449,25 6,62 24,83

1918 5.468 3.473 649 320 90 75 64 80,76 442,01 6,50 24,56

1919 5.640 3.445 639 309 92 74 63 82,08 448,75 6,66 24,90

1920 5.811 3.418 659 290 90 76 65 83,77 454,98 6,81 25,31

1921 5.789 3.717 675 305 98 78 67 85,62 470,49 6,90 26,07

1922 5.961 4.212 754 359 123 87 75 91,26 507,95 7,24 28,00

1923 5.643 3.674 671 304 102 78 67 83,93 462,28 6,74 25,58

1924 6.623 4.169 844 385 130 98 84 98,27 537,54 7,86 29,80

1925 6.636 4.103 854 372 129 99 85 98,10 534,64 7,85 29,68

1926 6.951 4.669 925 414 149 107 92 105,42 581,15 8,36 32,13

1927 6.442 4.579 909 409 148 105 90 99,88 553,06 7,84 30,56

1928 6.920 4.919 910 415 147 105 90 106,53 591,90 8,42 32,67

1929 6.664 4.800 835 376 115 97 83 102,50 568,04 8,13 31,52

1930 6.799 4.637 837 360 149 97 83 102,77 572,55 8,20 31,44

1931 7.072 4.626 868 394 146 101 86 105,62 583,94 8,46 32,18

1932 6.927 4.678 875 409 160 101 87 104,67 582,69 8,34 31,97

1933 7.427 4.952 914 435 170 106 91 111,54 621,27 8,92 34,05

1934 7.976 5.225 956 470 186 111 95 118,91 663,11 9,54 36,26

1935 8.329 5.357 969 485 190 112 96 123,21 686,64 9,93 37,53

1936 8.440 5.514 986 502 201 114 94 125,30 701,68 10,09 38,23

1937 8.451 5.288 998 504 217 116 102 124,35 694,05 10,02 37,76

1938 8.139 4.356 967 499 199 112 97 115,17 629,62 9,39 34,45

1939 7.795 3.399

1940 7.094 3.709

A Grout Put

Documents

Transcript of A Grout Put